On 11.04.2004 01:55:48 Peter B. West wrote: > In connection with our recent discussions concerning font handling, I > looked at the contentious fontconfig system driven by Keith Packard.
<snip what="very interesting resource"/> > I have also, as I noted previously, looked briefly at the way fonts are > defined in Java. Would I be correct in surmising that the current > manner of defining fonts is derived from Adobe's methods for PDF and PS? Correct. At the beginning, there was PDF. The whole thing was pretty much derived from the PDF-way of handling fonts. PostScript is quite similar. > If that is the case (a big if) might we not be better to move to a more > generic form, with translation into each particular form of font > specification? I can't tell. I don't see much benefit because the current system already provides most of what FOP needs. A total rewrite may provide more flexibility on the long run but will mean a lot of work which is problematic in FOPs current state. It should be fairly simple to add the two most important missing features to FOP font handling: on-the-fly font discovery and font aliases. On the other side, Keith Packard's system, I guess, would have to be reimplemented in Java for use to be able to use it. Jeremias Maerki
